Vladimir Putin
Comments
-
When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”0 -
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it.JC29856 said:When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.0 -
NYT? I had a few pages open Google searched uranium one, I'll check.mrussel1 said:
This is obviously sourced from somewhere and not your words, so please cite it. I'd like to read it.JC29856 said:When Hillary Clinton was questioned about the deal, she said she had no reason to intervene in the decision. But Raphael Williams of Circa reports that memos contained on WikiLeaks show Clinton was warned about Russian attempts to flex its muscle in uranium markets. And members of Congress also sounded the alarm.
The State Department had obtained a “strategy paper” from Rosatom, the Russian company seeking to purchase Uranium One. The strategy paper alarmed U.S. diplomats because it confirmed fears that Russia was moving to control the long-term supply of nuclear fuel, shut Westinghouse out of the market, and extend Moscow’s influence over Europe.
The resulting diplomatic cable lays out what Williams calls “a clear warning from career U.S. officials about why expanding Russia’s control of uranium markets was bad for the United States and for its allies in Europe.”
In addition, members of Congress pointed to the dangers of the Rosatom deal. Sen. John Barasso said it “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.” Rep. Peter King said it “would pose great potential harm to the national security of the United States.”
And regardless of all this, this was a cabinet level decision that was ultimately Obama's decision. So if you want to say it was a bad call, fine. But that doesn't make it nefarious.0 -
If you watch this video and compare what is alleged in it to what's in the NYT article isn't it plausible to conclude Billiary has more ties to Russia than Trump?JC29856 said:0 -
Warning do not watch this if you are or have experienced an increase in chronic butt hurt.
https://youtu.be/Nnqx6PYLqoQ
0 -
I watched it. What's your point, or what's the context of your butt-hurt statement?0
-
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:0 -
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.0 -
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.0 -
You mean if Russia didn't have nukes and we did? I would argue that Russia would not have provoked us if they didn't have nukes. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis or anything remotely like we dealt with for 50 years. On the other hand, if neither of us had nukes, we sure as hell would not have invaded Russia. I would hope our military leaders learned something from Napoleon and Hitler.... you can't take Mother Russia. She cannot be conquered by a ground army.JC29856 said:
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.0 -
Yes, sorry I meant Russian not having nukes and us having nukes, like the other countries we turned upside down when they or their leaders didn't bow to our empirical hegemony. Nukes give power and a platform for leaders like Putin to stand up to or as you say provoke the US.mrussel1 said:
You mean if Russia didn't have nukes and we did? I would argue that Russia would not have provoked us if they didn't have nukes. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis or anything remotely like we dealt with for 50 years. On the other hand, if neither of us had nukes, we sure as hell would not have invaded Russia. I would hope our military leaders learned something from Napoleon and Hitler.... you can't take Mother Russia. She cannot be conquered by a ground army.JC29856 said:
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.0 -
We would have never tried to invade Russia. That is the height of foolishness. How many foreign soldiers have died in the Russian winter over the centuries? Western Russia is littered with bodies in the ground and the Russians have never been afraid to send their soldiers to die, no matter the odds.JC29856 said:
Yes, sorry I meant Russian not having nukes and us having nukes, like the other countries we turned upside down when they or their leaders didn't bow to our empirical hegemony. Nukes give power and a platform for leaders like Putin to stand up to or as you say provoke the US.mrussel1 said:
You mean if Russia didn't have nukes and we did? I would argue that Russia would not have provoked us if they didn't have nukes. There would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis or anything remotely like we dealt with for 50 years. On the other hand, if neither of us had nukes, we sure as hell would not have invaded Russia. I would hope our military leaders learned something from Napoleon and Hitler.... you can't take Mother Russia. She cannot be conquered by a ground army.JC29856 said:
I don't disagree, but, the only reason we aren't and haven't been at real war with Russia is because of nukes. If Russia didn't have nukes we would have turned it upside down 30 years ago, like we did in Vietnam Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq and like were doing now in Syria following isis around.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.0 -
I hope you're right but I am not so certain about this. Russia along with China are ramping up their military posture right now. They are also clearly testing/using their cyber warfare capabilities at the same time. They are positioning themselves for conflict and whether they have intentions for conflict or not we just don't know. Both of those countries have strategic interests and territories that they want to put under their control. If I were them and I had the intention to make a move then I would make it at some point between now and the turnover to the next administration whoever that might be. The US and the west as a whole are divided on so many issues and a strategic strike by Russia/China in the next couple of months would be very hard to defend especially under the leadership of an exiting President who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to enforce redlines and who appears non-commital on treaty obligations. This isn't on Obama alone either...the leader of the GOP at the moment also appears non-commital on treaty obligations. I am not saying a strike by Russia/China will happen and people can accuse me of being a "blowhard" but there is a window of opportunity emerging for both of those countries that west should be prepared to deal with.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is going to do. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=87926Post edited by BS44325 on0 -
^^ Let me ask a few clarifying questions. What is the target that you think China and or Russia would strike militarily? I assume you are talking about some US territory or some territory that the US is specifically obligated to protect (Poland, Hungary, etc.). And which treaty has Obama not shown a willingness to defend, or publicly questioned the usefulness of said treaty? That seems to be a trait of Trump, not Clinton or Obama.0
-
Since Putin is trying to elect Trump and an escalation with Russia would only help Hilliary, I doubt anything will happen between now and Nov 8.BS44325 said:
I hope you're right but I am not so certain about this. Russia along with China are ramping up their military posture right now. They are also clearly testing/using their cyber warfare capabilities at the same time. They are positioning themselves for conflict and whether they have intentions for conflict or not we just don't know. Both of those countries have strategic interests and territories that they want to put under their control. If I were them and I had the intention to make a move then I would make it at some point between now and the turnover to the next administration whoever that might be. The US and the west as a whole are divided on so many issues and a strategic strike by Russia/China in the next couple of months would be very hard to defend especially under the leadership of an exiting President who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to enforce redlines and who appears non-commital on treaty obligations. This isn't on Obama alone either...the leader of the GOP at the moment also appears non-commital on treaty obligations. I am not saying a strike by Russia/China will happen and people can accuse me of being a "blowhard" but there is a window of opportunity emerging for both of those countries that west should be prepared to deal with.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is goino. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=879260 -
Both sides have to keep the boogeyman alive...0
-
Putin is only trying to create chaos and doubt in the system. He is succeeding in that regard.JC29856 said:
Since Putin is trying to elect Trump and an escalation with Russia would only help Hilliary, I doubt anything will happen between now and Nov 8.BS44325 said:
I hope you're right but I am not so certain about this. Russia along with China are ramping up their military posture right now. They are also clearly testing/using their cyber warfare capabilities at the same time. They are positioning themselves for conflict and whether they have intentions for conflict or not we just don't know. Both of those countries have strategic interests and territories that they want to put under their control. If I were them and I had the intention to make a move then I would make it at some point between now and the turnover to the next administration whoever that might be. The US and the west as a whole are divided on so many issues and a strategic strike by Russia/China in the next couple of months would be very hard to defend especially under the leadership of an exiting President who hasn't demonstrated the willingness to enforce redlines and who appears non-commital on treaty obligations. This isn't on Obama alone either...the leader of the GOP at the moment also appears non-commital on treaty obligations. I am not saying a strike by Russia/China will happen and people can accuse me of being a "blowhard" but there is a window of opportunity emerging for both of those countries that west should be prepared to deal with.mrussel1 said:
PJFanwillneverleave I'm sure you've read plenty of his posts. He writes in an unusual way that makes me say "wait...what?". So the point is that I don't understand your statement.JC29856 said:
Is PJfan a person or an adjective? I'm kinda one track minded.mrussel1 said:
What I took out of this video is nothing new. It shows me that Putin is who I think he is. Savvy, smart, manipulative and exceedingly rational. He is playing Trump with his compliments. I mean, good for him, that's what a KGB colonel is goino. But I don't think we are on our way to military conflict by any stretch of the imagination. We are setting lines of demarcation for a new Cold War or proxy war.
Edit - adding a link with respect to cyberattacks and how it could affect election day
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=879260
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUqn5uvZGjo
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help